so that Berg guy that was decapitated by "iraqis"...shoot i seriously think the U.S. either did it or had it done for them by someone else...why, you ask? think about it, if your an iraqi the last thing you would do at a time like right now, when your enemy is humiliated and their approval is at an all-time low, is take vengence for silly photographs because all of a sudden the photos seem justified...anyways so like i said, i think the U.S. did it themselves somehow to take the focus and attention of public opinion off of the prison photos, like when janet jackson "accidentally" showed her breast to take the focus off her brother wacko jacko...any thoughts? dont be pissed at me its just my opinion...

it's an interesting theory simon, and within the realm of possibility, but i just don't think it's real plausible.

it's only my opinion, but i think there are extremists over there just chomping at the bit to find any excuse to decapitate a westerner, especially an american.
also you are applying logic to the situation, which is a normal thing to do, but i don't think people who do things like this necessarily stop and think things out rationally and the ramifications of their actions.

I just have a hard time thinking that this administration would be deceptive. who knows, maybe i'm being naive here though. ; )

Christophe said:
>It's about more than pictures.
>
>People were raped and forced to rape eachother and had broomsticks shoved up their ass.
>
>I'd decapitate somebody for much less than that.
>
What about Daniel Pearl ?

Christophe said:
>Ah yes, it all becomes clear to me now; shoving broomsticks up people's asses is the logical consequence of one of their countrymen's actions, now the rapes and such are completely justified.
>
and you would appear to justify the beheading of an innocent man in revenge for the mistreatment of thugs and murderers ?

The point of the beheading was probably to show Arabs that Iraq is still opposed to the U.S. and that they're trying to fight back.

ifihadahif said:
>Yeah, sure and you know that place called area 51 ?
>The government is cloning an alien army to destroy those terrorists once and for all !
>yeah, that's it !

What planet are you from? Everybody knows that Area 51 was a myth created by the government so others that speak about government conspiracies would be considered crazy. In this way, they could hide their true secret operation.

Christophe said:
>It's about more than pictures.
>
>People were raped and forced to rape eachother and had broomsticks shoved up their ass.
>
>I'd decapitate somebody for much less than that.
>
your above post would appear to justify the beheading of an innocent.

Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>and you would appear to justify the beheading of an innocent man in revenge for the mistreatment of thugs and murderers ?
>
>Isn't america, the land of freedom and justice, also a country which believes in innocence untill proven guilty before a court of law?
>
prisoners of war are not subject to a trial with a jury of their peers.

ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>It's about more than pictures.
>>
>>People were raped and forced to rape eachother and had broomsticks shoved up their ass.
>>
>>I'd decapitate somebody for much less than that.
>>
>your above post would appear to justify the beheading of an innocent.

If they had been the people who were raped yes, but they weren't so no the decapitation wasn't justified, but again, that doesn't change anything about the fact people were raped and tortured by a 'civilised' country, which you do seem to justify.

Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Christophe said:
>>>It's about more than pictures.
>>>
>>>People were raped and forced to rape eachother and had broomsticks shoved up their ass.
>>>
>>>I'd decapitate somebody for much less than that.
>>>
>>your above post would appear to justify the beheading of an innocent.
>
>If they had been the people who were raped yes, but they weren't so no the decapitation wasn't justified, but again, that doesn't change anything about the fact people were raped and tortured by a 'civilised' country, which you do seem to justify.

they were not raped by any country. (first of all you must have more intel than i do because i've seen nothing that has to do with rape, but it's possible) the acts were committed by individuals. should a country be blamed for the acts of a few people? should we blame all arabs for that beheading?

ifihadahif said:
>prisoners of war are not subject to a trial with a jury of their peers.
But international agreements clearly state they they must be treated with respect (UN) and human rights may not be broken.

But it doesn't matter for americans. If a american soldier is ever held in prison to be judged by the international court that sits in The Hague (Den Haag) they will be set free by other americans...they will comit a jail break, since everybody needs to agree with international law...accept americans.

I do not agree with slicing somebodies head of his body, but torturing prisoners isn't the way either.

Maya said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>>
>>and you would appear to justify the beheading of an innocent man in revenge for the mistreatment of thugs and murderers ?
>
>i think you underestimate the level of mistreatment. Maybe in a sense it is justified, im aware that that sounds REALLY strange but maybe it is justified.
>
>

in what sense could it possibly be justified to be beheaded because you are from the same country as some people who did some very wrong things?!?!

Saw some general (forgot his name) admitting to the judge and before a commission that female prisoners had been raped and male prisoners have been forced to have sex with eachother and one of them had gotten a broomstick up his ass.

If a country should be blamed for the acts of a few why bomb iraq. I thought most iraqi's were victims of his regime, not participants since they are wholeheartedly cheering on the american invading troops.

Maya said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>>
>>and you would appear to justify the beheading of an innocent man in revenge for the mistreatment of thugs and murderers ?
>
>i think you underestimate the level of mistreatment. Maybe in a sense it is justified, im aware that that sounds REALLY strange but maybe it is justified.

Also a video of guards with dogs without any muzzles being used to scare the prisoners who were standing against the wall, and in another case a former prisoner giving an account of how he and some other people were placed in a row and dogs were let lose on them, he had the bitemarks to prove it.

I think the other pictures that show the humiliation of prisoners are pretty obvious as well.

casper said:
>Maya said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>>
>>>and you would appear to justify the beheading of an innocent man in revenge for the mistreatment of thugs and murderers ?
>>
>>i think you underestimate the level of mistreatment. Maybe in a sense it is justified, im aware that that sounds REALLY strange but maybe it is justified.
>>
>>
>
>in what sense could it possibly be justified to be beheaded because you are from the same country as some people who did some very wrong things?!?!]

Before i get burned at the stake let me explain, in no way do i condone what happend. I should have been clearer.But what about the bombings after Sept 11th, where they not bcos they were from "the same country as some people who did some very wrong things". Im not gonna lie, im no expert but its always depicted as harsher to people when it happens to the western world!!!

Christophe said:
>If a country should be blamed for the acts of a few why bomb iraq. I thought most iraqi's were victims of his regime, not participants since they are wholeheartedly cheering on the american invading troops.

Iraq and the U. S. have some similarities.

They fly planes into our buildings (which we call terrorism), so we bomb their buildings, killing many innocent Iraqis (which we call a war.)

Then we abuse their soldiers, they do the same back.

I've heard people say there country is screwed up as many young Arabs are taught to hate Bush, and soldiers shoot his picture.

Sort of like how we are taught to hate Hussein, and shoot pictures of him. (Yes, it's true, I know some people who went through military training recently.)

>
>Before i get burned at the stake let me explain, in no way do i condone what happend. I should have been clearer.But what about the bombings after Sept 11th, where they not bcos they were from "the same country as some people who did some very wrong things". Im not gonna lie, im no expert but its always depicted as harsher to people when it happens to the western world!!!

we declared war on those places and only bombed strategic areas. there were some mistakes made and some civilians killed but we never purposely attacked them. it's sometimes hard to tell the difference when everybody, civilian and military, is shooting at you.

Christophe said:
>casper said:
>>in what sense could it possibly be justified to be beheaded because you are from the same country as some people who did some very wrong things?!?!
>
>
>I can think of a few million people who could ask you the same question.

Zacq said:
>Christophe said:
>>If a country should be blamed for the acts of a few why bomb iraq. I thought most iraqi's were victims of his regime, not participants since they are wholeheartedly cheering on the american invading troops.
>
>Iraq and the U. S. have some similarities.
>
>They fly planes into our buildings (which we call terrorism), so we bomb their buildings, killing many innocent Iraqis (which we call a war.)
>
>Then we abuse their soldiers, they do the same back.
>
>I've heard people say there country is screwed up as many young Arabs are taught to hate Bush, and soldiers shoot his picture.
>
>Sort of like how we are taught to hate Hussein, and shoot pictures of him. (Yes, it's true, I know some people who went through military training recently.)

the difference is that when it became public knowledge about the abuse at the hands of americans 99 percent of us were horrified and pissed off that it happened...we were not in the streets cheering them on

casper said:
>
>>
>>Before i get burned at the stake let me explain, in no way do i condone what happend. I should have been clearer.But what about the bombings after Sept 11th, where they not bcos they were from "the same country as some people who did some very wrong things". Im not gonna lie, im no expert but its always depicted as harsher to people when it happens to the western world!!!
>
>we declared war on those places and only bombed strategic areas. there were some mistakes made and some civilians killed but we never purposely attacked them. it's sometimes hard to tell the difference when everybody, civilian and military, is shooting at you.

casper said:
>Christophe said:
>>casper said:
>>>in what sense could it possibly be justified to be beheaded because you are from the same country as some people who did some very wrong things?!?!
>>
>>
>>I can think of a few million people who could ask you the same question.
>
>really? i don't remember beheading anybody...

Blowing them up is something entirely different yes.

Who do you think has killed more innocent citizens of the other party, the US or the Iraqi's?

Maya said:
>casper said:
>>
>>>
>>>Before i get burned at the stake let me explain, in no way do i condone what happend. I should have been clearer.But what about the bombings after Sept 11th, where they not bcos they were from "the same country as some people who did some very wrong things". Im not gonna lie, im no expert but its always depicted as harsher to people when it happens to the western world!!!
>>
>>we declared war on those places and only bombed strategic areas. there were some mistakes made and some civilians killed but we never purposely attacked them. it's sometimes hard to tell the difference when everybody, civilian and military, is shooting at you.
>
>
>But surely death is death

so we should never had declared war like we did? we should have just "turned the other cheek" on sept 11 and said oh well...shit happens? i'm not saying we did everything right but i'm no strategist so i can't think of how we could have done it much better...hindsight is 20/20 after all

casper said:
>the difference is that when it became public knowledge about the abuse at the hands of americans 99 percent of us were horrified and pissed off that it happened...we were not in the streets cheering them on

If it's the video footage on CNN you're talking about, they admitted it was footage from the first gulf war that they thought to be appropriate.

Christophe said:
>casper said:
>>Christophe said:
>>>casper said:
>>>>in what sense could it possibly be justified to be beheaded because you are from the same country as some people who did some very wrong things?!?!
>>>
>>>
>>>I can think of a few million people who could ask you the same question.
>>
>>really? i don't remember beheading anybody...
>
>Blowing them up is something entirely different yes.
>
>
>Who do you think has killed more innocent citizens of the other party, the US or the Iraqi's?

this is war! innocents die in war. it sucks i know but what can you do? the amount of innocent deaths here is nothing compared to what went on in WWII. at least we are not activily targeting the innocent

A 9-year-old girl was severely burned recently in Iraq, the victim of a stray shell that crashed through her bedroom wall. This notice of another burned Iraqi child was buried deep in a news article that talked about our ongoing efforts to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

Tragically, children are killed every day in occupied Iraq, but it generally goes unreported. Occasionally, an editor decides to drop a small reminder of the innocent lives destroyed, but never too loudly in case a war enthusiast is offended.

I suspect, however, that war enthusiasts have long ago rationalized away our role in the death of children.

After all, they’ve rationalized away the weapons of mass destruction and every other administration lie, so why not rationalize away all the unnecessary deaths and mutilations?

Besides, Bush claims he gets his marching orders directly from God. How’s that for rationalization! How’s that for megalomania!

We’re all responsible for that little girl. Her life will never be whole, and our souls will forever carry the guilt.

But we can stop the killing. We don’t have to sink deeper into the abyss.

casper said:
>the difference is that when it became public knowledge about the abuse at the hands of americans 99 percent of us were horrified and pissed off that it happened...we were not in the streets cheering them on

Yea, I know there is a difference between America and Iraq, but many things Americans hate about them we do also.

One problem comes from the fact that all countries think they are the best one. To us, their actions against us are evil and ours against them are usually justified. Yes, some cheered the attacks, but they've been grown up to believe a certain way because of their culture. This is what we want to change, but we shouldn't punish people for it unless it's going to harm us (which cheering won't).

Christophe said:
>casper said:
>>the difference is that when it became public knowledge about the abuse at the hands of americans 99 percent of us were horrified and pissed off that it happened...we were not in the streets cheering them on
>
>
>If it's the video footage on CNN you're talking about, they admitted it was footage from the first gulf war that they thought to be appropriate.
>
>Propaganda anyone?

and? did it not still happen? i'm simply stating that we as a "nation" did not condone the acts of those few people

casper said:
>so we should never had declared war like we did? we should have just "turned the other cheek" on sept 11 and said oh well...shit happens?

I personally don't believe in going to war without agreement of the UN, no.

And perhaps it would have been worth the time to take a look at the reasons behind it all. You think people just started thinking: today we'll hate americans, let's blow ourselves up to take a few of them along with us.

Try to remember who instructed a big part of the terrorists as well before they turned their sights on a different target than russia.

>I personally don't believe in going to war without agreement of the UN, no.
>
>And perhaps it would have been worth the time to take a look at the reasons behind it all. You think people just started thinking: today we'll hate americans, let's blow ourselves up to take a few of them along with us.
>
>Try to remember who instructed a big part of the terrorists as well before they turned their sights on a different target than russia.

so you are justifying all those people who died on 9/11 but condemn us for justifying a few civilian deaths over it?

casper said:
>so we should never had declared war like we did? we should have just "turned the other cheek" on sept 11 and said oh well...shit happens? i'm not saying we did everything right but i'm no strategist so i can't think of how we could have done it much better...hindsight is 20/20 after all

The war on terror should not be in Iraq. Iraq was largely invaded because the war in Afghanistan proved ineffective for the administration. Even if Iraq may harbor terrorists, there are generations of Arabs that have grown up listening to Osama and other leaders say that the U.S. was going to attack and occupy and oil-rich Arab nation, so they will grow up hating us more than ever. The war in Iraq may have stopped some terrorism now (as I've heard some statistics say) but its effect on the future will be disastrous.

Christophe said:
>casper said:
>>and? did it not still happen? i'm simply stating that we as a "nation" did not condone the acts of those few people
>
>If it happened or not isn't the point at all, fact is that things were shown based on assumptions not on facts.
>
>And I don't know about 'those few people' as more and more cases seem to appear.
>
>
>
>Anybody saw that video of that helicopter shooting unarmed Iraqi's?

and who knows all the facts with the guards? do you? it seems to me that all the videos and pictures are now being shown with assumptions and no facts just as much as those that you are referring to

Zacq said:
>casper said:
>>so we should never had declared war like we did? we should have just "turned the other cheek" on sept 11 and said oh well...shit happens? i'm not saying we did everything right but i'm no strategist so i can't think of how we could have done it much better...hindsight is 20/20 after all
>
>The war on terror should not be in Iraq. Iraq was largely invaded because the war in Afghanistan proved ineffective for the administration. Even if Iraq may harbor terrorists, there are generations of Arabs that have grown up listening to Osama and other leaders say that the U.S. was going to attack and occupy and oil-rich Arab nation, so they will grow up hating us more than ever. The war in Iraq may have stopped some terrorism now (as I've heard some statistics say) but its effect on the future will be disastrous.
>
>This thread is gettin' crazy.

i'm not going to say we were right in invading iraq because i simply do not know for sure. for all i know there could have been intelligence out there that i don't know about.

casper said:
>>and who knows all the facts with the guards? do you? it seems to me that all the videos and pictures are now being shown with assumptions and no facts just as much as those that you are referring to

Who cares what the guards were thinking, is raping/torturing people a standard way of interrogation for america?

And again, did you see that video with the helicopter, I really wonder about that one.

As far as facts are concerned, a general confessing stuff like that had happened seems to be pretty concrete yes.

Here is how you know that the war should have been thought about a little bit more before beginning. We had a debate today about why the war in Iraq occured, going deeper than the supposed WMDs. By the end, we all agreed that we really don't know the reason, because all of them seem to be logically self-defeating. If a group of people can get together and talk and still not know completely why we started a war, that is not a good thing.

>Who cares what the guards were thinking, is raping/torturing people a standard way of interrogation for america?

Maybe. Some of the other things less reported, like people being put in extreme hot or cold temperatures, and things like putting bags over someones eyes to cut them off from the world around them are methods of interrogation proven to be effective. Because of how the Arab world views sex and nudity, maybe rape is a pre-interrogation method to.

Christophe said:
>Zacq said:
>>Because of how the Arab world views sex and nudity, maybe rape is a pre-interrogation method to.
>
>You think you would react differently to a broomstick up your ass than an arab guy?

No, I'm just commenting that maybe this seemingly random rape and torture is part of interrogation.

Christophe said:
>casper said:
>>>and who knows all the facts with the guards? do you? it seems to me that all the videos and pictures are now being shown with assumptions and no facts just as much as those that you are referring to
>
>Who cares what the guards were thinking, is raping/torturing people a standard way of interrogation for america?

i care what they were thinking because i'd like to know if they were just some disgusting pervs or if it goes deeper (as in orders) not that it would matter to the individuals because any orders of that kind would be illegal orders but it'd be nice to know

>And again, did you see that video with the helicopter, I really wonder about that one.
>
no actually i havn't
>
>As far as facts are concerned, a general confessing stuff like that had happened seems to be pretty concrete yes.

the general you are referring to was the investigator i'm assuming...seeing as how the general in charge is still denying any knowledge (ignorant woman that she is...) and he cannot know all the details yet either i'd imagine...it'd have to go through trial

Christophe said:
>casper said:
>>for all i know there could have been intelligence out there that i don't know about.
>
>
>What about based on the intelligence you have now?

based on what i know now then no...maybe if we had used different reasons (such as crimes on humanity) against saddam then i can see...but based on what i know for facts and the reasons for us going in i cannot agree with it

>i care what they were thinking because i'd like to know if they were just some disgusting pervs or if it goes deeper (as in orders) not that it would matter to the individuals because any orders of that kind would be illegal orders but it'd be nice to know

I didn't want to get into this again and have ifihadahif (or something like that) down my throat again, because I've already been through that, but oh well.

It is very possible that the abusers were following orders, because many of the things that were done are interrogation methods used by the CIA, as written in the handbook KUBARK, which they've been unable to keep secret due to the internet.

Zacq said:
>casper said:
>
>>i care what they were thinking because i'd like to know if they were just some disgusting pervs or if it goes deeper (as in orders) not that it would matter to the individuals because any orders of that kind would be illegal orders but it'd be nice to know
>
>I didn't want to get into this again and have ifihadahif (or something like that) down my throat again, because I've already been through that, but oh well.
>
>It is very possible that the abusers were following orders, because many of the things that were done are interrogation methods used by the CIA, as written in the handbook KUBARK, which they've been unable to keep secret due to the internet.

yeah...and if i had a secret document i'd post it on the internet too...oh wait...no i wouldn't!

>yeah...and if i had a secret document i'd post it on the internet too...oh wait...no i wouldn't!

What I meant was that before they could simply discredit people that revealed certain truths about them and kill and foreigners that did, but because of the internet they have become unable to stop it all.

That's why in the 1990s they started using the defense (using Bill Clinton) that they do more for us then we could ever know, in an attempt to justify some of their actions.

Zacq said:
>casper said:
>
>>yeah...and if i had a secret document i'd post it on the internet too...oh wait...no i wouldn't!
>
>What I meant was that before they could simply discredit people that revealed certain truths about them and kill and foreigners that did, but because of the internet they have become unable to stop it all.
>
>That's why in the 1990s they started using the defense (using Bill Clinton) that they do more for us then we could ever know, in an attempt to justify some of their actions.

Family accuses U.S. government
Berg's brother David on Wednesday told reporters outside his family's house that the U.S. position is false. He said the family received e-mails from Berg after his release in which he made clear he had been held by U.S. forces.

In an interview with Boston radio station WBUR on Tuesday, Berg's father, Michael, said: "I still hold (Rumsfeld) responsible because if they had let him ago after a more reasonable amount of time or if they had given him access to lawyers we could have gotten him out of there before the hostilities escalated.

"That's really what cost my son his life was the fact that the U.S. government saw fit to keep him in custody for 13 days without any of his due process or civil rights and released him when they were good and ready."

The interviewer asked, "Do you really blame Donald Rumsfeld for your son's death? And will you do anything in addition to that lawsuit you had filed?"

Michael Berg responded, "It goes further then Donald Rumsfeld. It's the whole Patriot Act, it's the whole feeling of this country that rights don't matter anymore because there are terrorists about.

"Well, in my opinion 'terrorist' is just another word like 'communist' or 'witch' and it's a witch hunt, and this whole administration is just representing something that is not America, not the America I grew up in."

Christophe said:
>About that berg guy:
>
>
>Family accuses U.S. government
>Berg's brother David on Wednesday told reporters outside his family's house that the U.S. position is false. He said the family received e-mails from Berg after his release in which he made clear he had been held by U.S. forces.
>
>In an interview with Boston radio station WBUR on Tuesday, Berg's father, Michael, said: "I still hold (Rumsfeld) responsible because if they had let him ago after a more reasonable amount of time or if they had given him access to lawyers we could have gotten him out of there before the hostilities escalated.
>
>"That's really what cost my son his life was the fact that the U.S. government saw fit to keep him in custody for 13 days without any of his due process or civil rights and released him when they were good and ready."
>
>The interviewer asked, "Do you really blame Donald Rumsfeld for your son's death? And will you do anything in addition to that lawsuit you had filed?"
>
>Michael Berg responded, "It goes further then Donald Rumsfeld. It's the whole Patriot Act, it's the whole feeling of this country that rights don't matter anymore because there are terrorists about.
>
>"Well, in my opinion 'terrorist' is just another word like 'communist' or 'witch' and it's a witch hunt, and this whole administration is just representing something that is not America, not the America I grew up in."
>
>
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/12/iraq.berg/index.html

yeah i heard that before...does anybody know why he was held by us forces in the first place?

WEST CHESTER, Pa. (AP) Nick Berg was on his way out of Iraq. He had been released from the prison where he had been held for 13 days by Iraqi police for reasons he said he did not know. He had made his way from Mosul to his Baghdad hotel. He was finished with being an independent civilian contractor and was coming home to West Chester.

That was April 9. A month later, Berg's parents, Michael and Suzanne, still haven't heard from him. They've gone from concerned to frantic.

``Our hopes are that he's still in hiding or en route and traveling in a very slow manner,'' Michael Berg said.

A spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq who tracks the number of civilians missing in that country was unavailable for comment. But in mid-April, coalition spokesman Dan Senor said during a news briefing in Baghdad that about 40 people from 12 countries were missing and presumed hostages.

Nick Berg, 26, owns a business called Prometheus Methods Tower Service Inc. He climbs communications towers to inspect the antennas, the electrical connections and the structure. He first went to Iraq on Dec. 21.

He stayed until Feb. 1, making contact with a company that indicated there would likely be work for him later. But he returned on March 14 and there was no work, so he began traveling. He usually called home once a day and e-mailed several times; Michael Berg is his business manager, and they needed to stay in touch.

They spoke on March 24, and Nick Berg told his parents he was coming home on March 30. Then the communications stopped, and he wasn't on the plane on March 30.

When FBI agents arrived at the Berg's West Chester home on March 31, they were relieved to know their son was alive, but in jail. The agents questioned them about various details that only they and their son would know about.

Jerri Williams, spokeswoman for the Philadelphia FBI office, said the agency was ``asked to interview the parents regarding Mr. Berg's purpose in Iraq.''

On April 5, the Bergs filed suit in federal court in Philadelphia, contending that their son was being held illegally by the U.S. military in Iraq.

The next day, April 6, Nick Berg was released. He told his parents he had been riding in a taxi on March 24 when he was arrested by Iraqi officials at a checkpoint in Mosul. He told his parents he had not been mistreated.

Nick Berg said he would come home through Jordan, Turkey or Kuwait. But by then, hostilities in Iraq had escalated, and Michael Berg said they have not heard from their son since.

The Bergs have hounded the State Department, the FBI and the International Committee of the Red Cross, seeking information. Michael Berg said the State Department sent an official to Nick Berg's hotel, where an employee told the official they had not heard of him.

The Bergs hired a private investigator, who talked to an American hotel guest who said he remembered Nick Berg.

Sometimes, they tell themselves their son ``is a resourceful fellow who can take care of himself,'' Michael Berg said.

``Other times we think perhaps he was dead on April 10,'' he said. ``My worst fear is that I'll never hear anything.''

Christophe said:
>Lol.
>
>It's because I haven't seen it yet, all I have seen up to now is a guy in an orrange suit sitting in front of some guys in a black suit.
>
You can go to www.frontpagemag.com and see a series of stills from the video.
still pretty gruesome.

But we must support our troops in Iraq and love America and worship satan-

Oops, got carried away quoting Bush. Yea, the above link shows how soldiers are people too, and sometimes not good people (note the Ramadan present pic) as opposed to them all being heroes we should be proud of (note rapists).

Christophe said:
>casper said:
>>yeah because we just bomb random civilian towns for no reason whatsoever...it's fun!
>
>So you're saying that berg guy was just killed for the fun of it?

i have no clue why he was killed. there are a half a dozen different theories as to why they killed him. i just don't believe that website to be a credible source. i'm not saying that it's not all true but for all i know half of those pics could have been from people who were attacking american forces, or maybe they were actually hurt by other arabs. or they could have been from something completely different. a picture in this day and age does not constitute proof by any means

casper said:
>i have no clue why he was killed. there are a half a dozen different theories as to why they killed him.

I wonder if they would have killed him and put a video of it online if they didn't want to get a message through. It's probably a coincidence that it's an american as well.

>i just don't believe that website to be a credible source. i'm not saying that it's not all true but for all i know half of those pics could have been from people who were attacking american forces, or maybe they were actually hurt by other arabs. or they could have been from something completely different. a picture in this day and age does not constitute proof by any means
>

Yeah I agree but that was the first thing that came up with google when I searched for iraqi civilian casualties or something like that.

ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>I doubt it that the picture of that carrier is real.
>>
>That picture is from the first Gulf war and it is very real.
>The letters are formed by the sailors in white uniforms.

Lol.

Gsus it's even more fucked up than I thought.

That couldn't be dfone without the knowledge and approval of the officer in command.

I can't see any circumstances that the iraqi's would be justified in killing Berg like they did. They have only made matters worse for themselves. Killing justified by a holy jihad against civilians in Allah's name is complete bullshit

I can't see any circumstances that the U.S. soldiers would be justified in doing the things they did to the Iraqi prisoners.
(and I understand that I haven't even seen the worst acts according to Rumsfeld)
I don't care what excuse is given. You do not do that to another human being, even if it turns out they were "ordered" to do it.

there shouldn't even be a berg incident cuz there shouldn't even be an Iraqi War

addison said:
>i know i'm geting in late here...
>
>I can't see any circumstances that the iraqi's would be justified in killing Berg like they did. They have only made matters worse for themselves. Killing justified by a holy jihad against civilians in Allah's name is complete bullshit
>
>I can't see any circumstances that the U.S. soldiers would be justified in doing the things they did to the Iraqi prisoners.
>(and I understand that I haven't even seen the worst acts according to Rumsfeld)
>I don't care what excuse is given. You do not do that to another human being, even if it turns out they were "ordered" to do it.
>
You are absolutely correct.
And the one redeeming factor in my eyes is that of the two atrocities you speak of, one is sponsored by the rulers of that group and the perpetrators will no doubt be rewarded for their act of cowardice and the other is abhorred by their govt and will be punished for their acts of depravity.

Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Christophe said:
>>>I doubt it that the picture of that carrier is real.
>>>
>>That picture is from the first Gulf war and it is very real.
>>The letters are formed by the sailors in white uniforms.
>
>Lol.
>
>Gsus it's even more fucked up than I thought.
>
>That couldn't be dfone without the knowledge and approval of the officer in command.
>
>Disturbing.
>
Why is that disturbing ? When you are at war with someone, this is the norm.
This is one of the ways to keep spirits up with the troops.
Don't you think similar things were done during ww2 ?

ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>Christophe said:
>>>>I doubt it that the picture of that carrier is real.
>>>>
>>>That picture is from the first Gulf war and it is very real.
>>>The letters are formed by the sailors in white uniforms.
>>
>>Lol.
>>
>>Gsus it's even more fucked up than I thought.
>>
>>That couldn't be dfone without the knowledge and approval of the officer in command.
>>
>>Disturbing.
>>
>Why is that disturbing ? When you are at war with someone, this is the norm.
>This is one of the ways to keep spirits up with the troops.
>Don't you think similar things were done during ww2 ?

Um - does things being done in World War Two justify us doing them again? It is disturbing if troops have to line up in profane formations to keep up their spirits so they can shoot people.

the reasons for this act probably arn't that deep. like ifihadahif was saying, it's what happens in war. Back in the middle ages they launched heads over castle walls, why? to show that they mean fucking business.

the acts against the iraqi soldiers are different from the decapitation because our actions were primarily for interrogation purposes(or so it would logically seem given that kubark handbook and all). it's fucking war and we're killing people so who fucking cares about torturing people to get leads? if we're in a war, this is what's going to happen, and it will never happen any other way until we have super mind reading devices.

i've not seen any evidance to support that the males attendants were raped, and something of that nature would suprise me since i'm sure homosexuallity would not be looked highly upon by fellow troops. the non-interogation related incidents were simple examples of fucking w/ the captured, probably out of boredom, and yeah, they should be punished.

Asswipe said:
>i've not seen any evidance to support that the males attendants were raped, and something of that nature would suprise me since i'm sure homosexuallity would not be looked highly upon by fellow troops.

Some people were sodomized with sticks of some sort, and some were forced to have sex with each other. I'm not sure if any were raped.

Zacq said:
>
>Some people were sodomized with sticks of some sort, and some were forced to have sex with each other. I'm not sure if any were raped.
>
I've heard rumors of this, but have yet to see anything published on it. Where did you get your evidence ?

Zacq said:
>Um - does things being done in World War Two justify us doing them again?
>
Sure, why not ? These guys are over there for one purpose and one purpose only, to kill other guys, and you are disturbed by the fact that they line up for a fun picture ? you are actually disturbed by this ?
And to think that I once put my life on the line so you could live your life without fear ? Kinda makes me wanna puke !

ifihadahif said:
>Sure, why not ? These guys are over there for one purpose and one purpose only, to kill other guys, and you are disturbed by the fact that they line up for a fun picture ? you are actually disturbed by this ?
>And to think that I once put my life on the line so you could live your life without fear ? Kinda makes me wanna puke !

I didn't really mean I was particularly disturbed I was just using the same words as someone I was making a reference to. But I'm hard to disturb.

And I personally don't live my life without fear - now that we've managed to do exactly what terrorists waid we were going to do, I'm a little nervous for when young impressionable Arabs grow up.

addison said:
>i know i'm geting in late here...
>
>I can't see any circumstances that the iraqi's would be justified in killing Berg like they did. They have only made matters worse for themselves. Killing justified by a holy jihad against civilians in Allah's name is complete bullshit
>
>I can't see any circumstances that the U.S. soldiers would be justified in doing the things they did to the Iraqi prisoners.
>(and I understand that I haven't even seen the worst acts according to Rumsfeld)
>I don't care what excuse is given. You do not do that to another human being, even if it turns out they were "ordered" to do it.
>
>there shouldn't even be a berg incident cuz there shouldn't even be an Iraqi War
>
>our foreign policy is so fucked up right now
>
>
>
>
amen to that kemosabi
>
>

>And I personally don't live my life without fear - now that we've managed to do exactly what terrorists waid we were going to do, I'm a little nervous for when young impressionable Arabs grow up.

yeah, shoot Zacq, if we make it that long, long enough to see these youngn's grow up that is, you can bet we're in for a treat...unless bush, once re-elected, somehow manages to initiate his 'leave-no-child-behind' program in iraq and thus turn the iraqis into loyal american wannabes in a single generation...seems to be his plan anyway...

Zacq said:
>I didn't really mean I was particularly disturbed I was just using the same words as someone I was making a reference to. But I'm hard to disturb.
>

>And I personally don't live my life without fear - now that we've managed to do exactly what terrorists waid we were going to do, I'm a little nervous for when young impressionable Arabs grow up.
>
Fear is your own thing. If you do live your life with fear, then maybe you should do something about it. I personally don't fear reprisals from a tryannical govt. or military occupation from another govt., the only fear I have is that our schools are turning out idiots by the thousands and our futures might be compromised because of that.
As for the "WE" you are talking about above, I do not consider myself among them, of course you can if you want. I've been in the military and and I can assure you that 99percent of the American military would roast those bastards on a spit and don't consider themselves part of the "WE" either.

ifihadahif said:
>Zacq said:
>>I didn't really mean I was particularly disturbed I was just using the same words as someone I was making a reference to. But I'm hard to disturb.
>>
>
>>And I personally don't live my life without fear - now that we've managed to do exactly what terrorists waid we were going to do, I'm a little nervous for when young impressionable Arabs grow up.
>>
>Fear is your own thing. If you do live your life with fear, then maybe you should do something about it. I personally don't fear reprisals from a tryannical govt. or military occupation from another govt., the only fear I have is that our schools are turning out idiots by the thousands and our futures might be compromised because of that.
>As for the "WE" you are talking about above, I do not consider myself among them, of course you can if you want. I've been in the military and and I can assure you that 99percent of the American military would roast those bastards on a spit and don't consider themselves part of the "WE" either.
>

Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Why is that disturbing ? When you are at war with someone, this is the norm.
>
>Yeah, it's completely normal to have a carrier crew line up to spell 'fuck iraq'.
>
>I thought it wasn't against the iraqi's themselves?
>
>The fucking arrogance.
>
You know Chris, this is so typical of you and your arrogance to jump on ANYTHING anti-american. If you would grow up just a little, you might realize this is not a personal thing against Iraqis. Are saying we have something against the Iraqi people ? Is that what you are saying ? You of all people using the word arrogance against someone else is very much the pot calling the kettle black.
This is the ship crew flipping the bird at Saddam, nothing more, but you are too blinded (or stupid) by your desire to find fault with America that you have no idea of this.

>>This is one of the ways to keep spirits up with the troops.
>
>Must be very dumb troops to willingly get herderd into a formation like that.
>
No one is forced to do this, they do it willingly.
Maybe you should try serving on a modern aircraft carrier, spending up to 9 months at sea. I'm sure your quite smart enough to do it. And emotionally prepared as well *cough**cough* . . .

>>Don't you think similar things were done during ww2 ?
>
>So what?
>
So things of this nature are traditional in ALL military establishments.

Christophe said:
>I wonder what you'd say if you saw a mass of iraqi's lined up spelling fuck america.
>
>You probably wouldn't see it as something directed agains tthe american people either.
>
>Would be an enterily diffrerent story then huh.

your right...it's better to just cut of an american's head and spread it across the internet. that's a much better way of saying fuck america don't you think?

Christophe said:
>One thing has nothing to do with the other.
>
>I never said to approve cutting that guy's head off, did I.
>
>But I don't approve torturing iraqi's because of it either, and from a military I do expect some form of maturity.
>
>But hey, that's just me.

it has alot to do with it actually. we are fighting these people...when you are at war with a nation you tend to generalize the nation as a whole into a certain catagory. they are all enemies for that time. if you don't then you can't do your job.

and i also don't agree with torturing people. neither does the rest of the military. and that is way the people involved will be spending alot of time making big rocks into smaller rocks at leavenworth.

you spend a little time in a war and deal with all the moral problems that are involved and then you can talk shit about the maturity level in that group.

Christophe said:
>I wonder what you'd say if you saw a mass of iraqi's lined up spelling fuck america.
>
No, it would be totally in the realm of the norm with someone you are at war with.

>You probably wouldn't see it as something directed agains tthe american people either.
>
nope

>Would be an enterily diffrerent story then huh.
>
>And don't say it you'd say the same thing about it hif if you want to be taken serious by anybody in the future.
>
>Reminds me of keep 'em comming.
>
Yeah, what's wrong with that ?
BTW, it's "bring 'em on"

>I have no desire to find fault with anybody, I just point out a few things here and there which you can't ignore.
>
Bullshit
>
>If you think something like that is funny or whatever, you are a dumb fucking american hif.
>
>But hey, nothing personal towards the american people.
>
awww, poor baby, got upset by some sailors flipping the bird at Saddam.
poor poor baby boy,
Grow up dude, your picking at straws.

ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>I wonder what you'd say if you saw a mass of iraqi's lined up spelling fuck america.
>>
>No, it would be totally in the realm of the norm with someone you are at war with.
>
>>You probably wouldn't see it as something directed agains tthe american people either.
>>
>nope
>

>Kind of contradicting isn't it.
>
contradicting how? you gotta explain these things to me, after all i'm in this childish military that you are referring to so obviously i'm not all that intelligent...

>>you spend a little time in a war and deal with all the moral problems that are involved and then you can talk shit about the maturity level in that group.
>
>I'll agree to it in a way that I have no idea of what it's like to be in a war.
>
>I don't see how that justifies something childish and just plain stupid like that though.
>
>It just strikes me that your military would make such a pathetic fool out of itself by acting like a group of pre-schoolers wanting to do something cool on the playground.

Actually i don't believe that's what the first war was about...which is when that pic was taken. and even if it wasn't it still wouldn't apply. when you are fighting the government of a nation you are fighting everyone in that nation until the war is over. if you don't then you will be killed by the "civilian" with the carbine
>
>So you're saying the soldiers are doing their best to free their enemies or something like that?
>
>>you gotta explain these things to me, after all i'm in this childish military that you are referring to so obviously i'm not all that intelligent...
>>
>
>I never said anything about your intelligence.
>
>Did say something about the guys on that carrier and the people who approve it though.
>
>Wie het schoentje past trekke het aan.
>
>>it has to do with moral...something you know nothing about obviously
>
>Tells something about the level of indoctrination though.

a good fighting force is made up of soldiers who follow orders and don't think for themselves. that goes for any country. that's why training tries to break down the individual and re-enforce them team mentality. good soldiers follow the herd and do exactly what they are told, when they are told.
Imagine being a grunt soldier on that carrier and saying to your fellow soldiers, "I think I'll skip spelling out the dirty words fellows. It really isn't very nice to the Iraqi people"

I imagine that i would end up doing a lot of things i would say i would never do if i was put on the front line of a war.

Even better yet, imagine Christophe being grown up enough to be able to deal with authority. LOL
>
If you think something like that is funny or whatever, you are a dumb fucking american hif.

But hey, nothing personal towards the american people.
>
That's such a profound statement Chris.
Let me get this straight: you think it's ok to make a judgement of one's intellectual capacity based on his or her sense of humor ?
And why the need to interject my nationality in that statement ? Could it be that even though you deny it, you very much enjoy every put-down of an american you can muster?
Your anti-Americanism is so transparent that you might as well be a muslim arab.

Christophe said:
>Americans never generalise based on nationality, I forgot.
>
And that makes it ok for you to do the same ? Even as you try to deny it ?

>If that is your sense of humor, then yes, I judge on that for myself.
>
Then you are a fool.
If you don't like someone's sense of humor, that's one thing, but if you think you can judge their intellectual capacity based on what one thinks is humorous the you are stupid beyond comprehension.

>There's a time and place for everything and like I said before it's plain childish.
>
That's your opinion (which means nothing) and you are passing judgement on something you know nothing about.

>It has nothing to do with anti-americanism, gsus you call this something intelligent?
>
Exactly where did anyone call this intelligent ?
We said it was a morale booster, basically flipping the bird at Saddam, nothing more.
>And yeah, all muslim arabs are anti-american.
>
>Keep it up and in a while the whole world will be.
>
Just the thought of such a world probably gives you a hard-on.

chris, it seems your "anti-americanism" directs every single one of your thoughts, man. take a step back, look at the big picture and ask yourself if half of the shit you've been complaining about actually matters.

Ever hear the expression "all's fair in love and war"?? it isn't a damn joke. people don't kill each other like they're playing chess, not when you're the pieces involved, at least. you need to mentally degrade the other fighters to barbarians to relieve yourself of the moral guilt... it's a nasty business buddy.

Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Christophe said:
>>>Americans never generalise based on nationality, I forgot.
>>>
>>And that makes it ok for you to do the same ? Even as you try to deny it ?
>
>You do it yourself as well.
>
A typical childish tactic, you choose not to address the statement and put the blame elsewhere.

Asswipe said:
>chris, it seems your "anti-americanism" directs every single one of your thoughts, man. take a step back, look at the big picture and ask yourself if half of the shit you've been complaining about actually matters.

It isn't worth complaining about.

It just bothers me that soldiers actually took the time to plan and organise all of that with the approval of their superiors and thought it was cool.

I'm 100% certain that if something like that happened over here the guy responsible would get fired.

100%

>Ever hear the expression "all's fair in love and war"?? it isn't a damn joke. people don't kill each other like they're playing chess, not when you're the pieces involved, at least. you need to mentally degrade the other fighters to barbarians to relieve yourself of the moral guilt... it's a nasty business buddy.

I agree, something like that isn't a joke.

And I'm aware that people need to have an image of the enemy being some sort of barbarian.

Christophe said:
>Asswipe said:
>>chris, it seems your "anti-americanism" directs every single one of your thoughts, man. take a step back, look at the big picture and ask yourself if half of the shit you've been complaining about actually matters.
>
>It isn't worth complaining about.
>
I believe you actually said it was "disturbing"

>It just bothers me that soldiers actually took the time to plan and organise all of that with the approval of their superiors and thought it was cool.
>
Ok, they weren't soldiers, they were sailors. If they were soldier, they would have misspelled Iraq (sorry Casper). And how do you know they thought it was cool ?

>I'm 100% certain that if something like that happened over here the guy responsible would get fired.
>
>100%
>
And I'm 100% percent certain you are wrong. I served with NATO personell and I know a little something about their sailors. This stuff goes on in EVERY military in the world. 100%

>>Ever hear the expression "all's fair in love and war"?? it isn't a damn joke. people don't kill each other like they're playing chess, not when you're the pieces involved, at least. you need to mentally degrade the other fighters to barbarians to relieve yourself of the moral guilt... it's a nasty business buddy.
>
>I agree, something like that isn't a joke.
>
>And I'm aware that people need to have an image of the enemy being some sort of barbarian.
>
>That doesn't make it any less stupid though.
>
Perhaps it would help if you thought of war as sort of a controlled insanity.
Perhaps from your vantage point, it looks stupid, but from someone who has been there, I assure you that it's not.
Casper has been there too and he concurs.
I'll bet if you ask Chanz or Ant they will tell you the same. The military is a different world and all the explaining in the world will not make you understand it, you have to go through it.
Believe me when I tell you this, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Fair enough; but from my point of view it's still childish and stupid.

Show me a picture of other NATO personell doing this in modern times hif. If it happens as much as you say it does surely there must be a lot of pictures about it out there, otherwise they would never see what their choreography adds up to.

And yeah, it's disturbing and it isn't worth complaining about, but I do since you defend such behaviour.

Given the incomprehensible jungle of information, the very first question, when viewing this video of an American civilian, N. Berg"s execution, should be whether it is even true?
There appear to be a few problems with it, casting doubt on its authenticity. If these questions aren"t answered, one should be wary of the entire matter and be advised not to give in to the patriotic blindness brought on by the emotional charge this video packs.

Consider these inconsistencies with the video before making up your mind:

1) CIA claims it has examined the video and concluded that the hooded figure is Zaqrawi, a high level al-Qaeda operative. However, anyone who has seen the video will attest to the fact that there is no way to identify anyone from it, including the victim. Second, according to an US military report in April "03, Zaqrawi was killed in the bombing of Falluja. CIA does not elaborate whether Zaqrawi has magically sprung back to life or whether the April report was wrong.

2) The US media claimed that Zaqrawi lost a leg in 2001. Now, it says that he did not lose his leg after all. This flip flop seems too coincidental as the purported figure in the video doesn"t appear handicapped. The US does not elaborate on which intelligence is wrong.

3) The US media says the audio says that N. Berg was executed in retaliation to the US prison abuse. The reaction of the media was far too quick. It moved straight to using it in making a comparison between prison "humiliation" and a "beastly killing" saying to the shocked public "Look, we only humiliated them in the prison and look at what the animals do to us." It was quick to point out that what the terrorists do to Americans is far worse than what the US is doing to the Iraqis.

There are several problems with this. First, there have been numerous reported deaths in the US prisons caused by severe beatings so comparing "humiliation" to a death is the wrong comparison. Second, the tortures and abuses have gone on for over a year. If al-Qaeda were in the business of avenging prison abuse, it would have already done it and probably on several occasions. Otherwise, it means that Al-Qaeda gets their information from CNN or that it just happened to be a coincidence matching Abu Ghraib prison pictures with this video. It"s very unlikely that al-Qaeda would and could engage in this synchronized US media play. The timing of the video release and the media attempts to whip up an anti-Islamic frenzy suggests a media ruse timed perfectly to deflect the mounting outrage and condemnation of the US military.

) The voice on the video says that an offer was made to the US military to exchange N. Berg for "some of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib". The US has not commented on this.

5) The Bergs claim their son was detained by the US and are blaming their son"s death on the US military but the US says that N. Berg was never detained and instead was offered a free plane ride from Iraq. It does, however, seem that in order to offer a plane ticket, the US military must have had some dealing with N. Berg. In any case, N. Berg disappeared when in US custody.

6) The victim in the video is wearing an orange prison jumpsuit, the kind seen in pictures of Guantanamo inmates. It"s hard to believe that al-Qaeda terrorists would be supplying their victims a regulation outfit. None of the recently kidnapped hostages in Iraq (Japanese and Italian) wore any uniform outfits whatsoever.

7) [WARNING: Reader"s discretion advised] A human head contains 1.5 gallons of blood yet the freshly decapitated head shown in the video is leaking none. Neck artery would squirt a foot long geyser of blood. There is no evidence of that either. Only one answer lends itself here: the video was doctored. Either a portion was clipped out or the beheading never took place as shown, with the possibility of the victim being already dead.

8) The victim never resisted the killing. Even when on the ground, only one person sufficed to completely subdue N. Berg.

This article aims at proving or alleging nothing. The point is to provoke doubt and hopefully stave off a few readers from becoming an easy emotional target and a news puppet.